Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 September 1908 — JOURNEYING IN LAND OF DREAMS [ARTICLE]

JOURNEYING IN LAND OF DREAMS

Impractical* Democratic Proposition for Trust Control. Convincing Exposition of Fallacy of Bryan’s Panacea for Solving Problems of Modern ‘'' Business. (Prom Gov. Hughes’ Youngstown speech.) - f When we consider Remedies that are proposed for the trusts, we find ourselves journeying in a land of dreams. Again the magician of 1896 waves his Jand. At a stroke difficulties disapsar and the complex problems of modern business are forgotten In the fascination of the simple panacea. And, aa the free coinage of silver in the ratio of 16 to 1 was to destroy the curse of gold, so the new found specific of equal perfection is to remove the curse of Industrial oppression. The delusion of 1908 is comparable only to that of twelve years ago. The first sugestion is that the law should prevent a duplication of -41rectors among competing corporations. However advisable it may 1$ to have Independent directorates of competing Corporations, It would seem still more important to have independent stockholders, for a majority of the stockholders of a corporation choose the directors. If a law were passed preventing ?the duplication of directors it would easily be evaded in the selection #f men who would represent the same Interests. The most ordinary experience shows that it is not necessary to •erve on a board of directors in order to control its proceedings. Whatever the advantage of such a law as is proposed, it hardly rises to the dignity of a "remedy,” or vindicates its title to a place in an imposing scheme of reform outlined in a national platform. But the more Important proposal is “that any manufacturing or trading corporation engaged In Interstate commerce shall be required to take out a federal license before It shall be permitted to control a* much as 25 per cent of the product in which it deals." A_, license is permission, and the objeet of the remedy is not to regulate large businesses, but to destroy trusts. Hence the supposed efficiency of the plan is to be found In the prohibition of the control by any such corporation “of more than 50 per cent of the total amount at any product consumed in the United States.” This la another delusion of ratio. It might be Interesting to inquire what is the meaning of “any product consumed in the United States.” Does it refer to a class of commodities? And, if so, how shall the classes be defined? Or does it refer to each separate article of commerce? And, if se, what account does this proposal take of the skill and initiative of manufacturers who haye built up a more or leas exclusive trade in particular articles, often protected by trade-marks, although In most active competition with other articles designed for the same general purpose and seeking the same market? In a desire to correct the evils of business are we to place an embargo upon honest endeavor whose activities present none of the abuses requiring remedies? And, If not, what statutory definitions shall be found to be adequate and Just if we lay down our prohibition in terms of volume or ratio of business and not in termß of right and wrong? If we adopt Mr. Bryan’s proposal, to what period of production is the prohibition to apply? Is the excess for a day or for a month to be considered? Or Is the average production for a year to be taken 7 And'what system shall be devised by which suitable Information may be furnished in the nature of danger signals along the routes of trade ■o that the manufacturer may know when he is about to exceed the prescribed ratio? He may Justly be required to govern bis own conduct, but how shall he be apprised of the conduct of others upon which is to depend his guilt or innocence? The patent laws confer a trus monopoly In the exclusive right to manufacture and aell. Ace these laws to be repealed because a "private monopoly la indefensible and intolerable?”

Brynn’n Crarie ReaMnUf. An example of Mr. Bryant reason ing to found In hla statement that “when a corporation controls DO per cent of the total product it supplies forty millions of people with that product.” There are, of course, specialties which hars a limited market and are used by a relatively small number of the people of the United States. More than SO per cent, and indeed even as much as 100 per cent of the trade In such articles may be In the control of a particular corporation. This may, in fact, be relatively a small corporation. It may never have aaplred to the unsavory renown of a “trust” But by prosecuting its particular line with fidelity and meeting satisfactorily a limited want; or by reason of some secret processes or advantage of experience, It may control the trade lu e given article of commerce. Or, suppose a concern controls the whole trade in some useful byproduct which It hoe found it advantageous to make, Is the trade to be prohibited? The Democratic platform makes no -4*.. .

exceptions to cover such cases, and we have learned that ft is equally “binding is to what It omits.” If we could Imagine such a crude prohibition to be enacted into law, and to be regarded as valid, what would be the effect? Mr. Bryan, with his usual readiness, suggests that the concern may sell as much of its plants as are not needed to produce the amount allowed by law. He speaks as though every manufacturing concern had as many fully equipped units of production as would correspond to any given percentage of trade which It might be required to lop off. Plants are not so easily dismembered. Reduction' In output means reduction hi work, reduction in the number of men employed and curtailment of the efficiency of a going concern. Let us suppose a concern which controls 80 per cent at a given product—that is to say, makes and sella $8,000,000 in value out of a total trade In thenprOduct amounting to $lO,000,000. Is it to be compelled to reduce Hs output to $2,000,009 because only $2,000,000 la value are made fey ethers? Then, If It could sell a part of Its plant on Mr. Bryan’s theory, what should It Bell? Should it sell off enough to reduce its capacity to $5,000,000, and allow three-fifths of Its plant to remain idle until others developed a capacity for handling the other $5,000,000? Should it assume that the total trade will increase and is not always to remain at $10,000,000, and hence retain a larger portion of Its plant in ldleness? Or suppose a concern controls 100 per-cent of the trade In some article, what plants shall It retain? It can produce nothing until others produce ; but it may produce an amount equal to the production of others, and It hopes the trade will grow. What a vision of business uncertainty and confusion, of idle and impaired plants, of the ruin of workingmen whose lives have clustered around particular Industries and who depend upon their continued efficiency, is presented by this fanciful remedy for the destruction of trusts!

Apart from this, if the dissolution were effected in the manner desired and portions of plants could be sold and were sold as suggested, to whom would the sale be matte? Would it be necessarily to foes ot to those ambitious to be competitors and anxious to take advantage of its plight? This proposal In Its utter disregard of the facts of business, to Its substitution of the phantasies of the imagination for the realities of life, stamps the Democratic platform with the fatal stamp of 1896. The commerce and Industry of this country, the Interests of its wage earners and of its interdependent masses, Who must rely upon the stability of business, cannot afford -to give license to such vagaries. In the solemnity with which this proposal has been declared, and the Insistence with which It is advocated, we find an appropriate test of the capacity of our opponents to dewt wisely with th« problems «f the day.